EPA does not intend to mail this announcement in large quantities.
Additional information, forms, etc., should be obtained by consulting
this web site.

Introduction

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Office of Research
and Development (ORD), invites research grant applications in the
following areas of special interest to its mission:

Exploratory Research

Ecosystem Indicators

Issues in Human Health Risk Assessment

Endocrine Disruptors

Ambient Air Quality

Health Effects and Exposures to Particulate Matter and Associated
Air Pollutants

Drinking Water

Contaminated Sediments

EPA plans to collaborate with other agencies in soliciting grant applications
in the following research areas. Descriptions of these will appear
in separate announcements.

Water and Watersheds (joint with NSF)
Technology for a Sustainable Environment (joint with NSF)
Decision-making and Valuation for Environmental Policy (joint
with NSF)
Harmful Algal Blooms (joint with NOAA, NSF, and ONR)
Bioremediation (joint with DOE, NSF, and ONR)
Metal Toxicities Associated with Mixtures: Molecular and Cellular
Effects Relevant to Carcinogenesis (joint with NCI)
Ecosystem Restoration (joint with NASA)
Arsenic (joint with AWWARF and ACWA)

This invitation provides relevant background information, summarizes
EPA's interest in the topic areas, and describes the application and
review process.

Background

In fiscal year 1995 EPA began an expansion of its investigator-initiated
research grants program for academic and not-for-profit institutions
(the STAR Program, Science to Achieve Results). Subsequently, this
program increased in fiscal years 1996 and 1997, and in fiscal year
1998 EPA anticipates reaching its programmatic goal of $100 million.
As a part of that program, this Request for Applications (RFA) describes
the EPA 1997 solicitation. Additional joint programs with the National
Science Foundation and other agencies will be announced separately.

EPA Mission and R & D Strategy

The mission of EPA is to protect both environmental quality and
human health through effective regulations and other policy implementation.
Achievement of this mission requires the application of sound science
to assessment of environmental problems and to evaluation of possible
solutions. A significant challenge is to support both long-term
research that anticipates future environmental problems as well
as research that fills gaps in knowledge relevant to meeting current
Agency goals. This Request for Applications and the multi-agency
solicitations are important steps toward promoting a sound scientific
foundation for environmental protection.

EPA's research programs focus on the reduction of uncertainty
associated with risk assessment and reduction of risks to human
health and ecosystems. Through its laboratories and through grants
to academic and other not-for-profit institutions, EPA promotes
research in both domains, according the highest priority to those
areas in which risk assessors are most in need of new concepts,
methods, and data. EPA also fosters the development and evaluation
of new risk reduction technologies across a spectrum, from pollution
prevention through end-of-pipe controls to remediation and monitoring.
In all areas, EPA is interested in research that recognizes issues
relating to environmental justice, the concept of achieving equal
protection from environmental and health hazards for all people
without regard to race, economic status, or culture.

EPA's extramural research grant programs are administered by ORD's
National Center for Environmental Research (NCER). The individual
topic areas are discussed below.

RESEARCH TOPICS OF INTEREST

1. Exploratory Research

The mission of EPA is to provide environmental policies, risk
assessments, pollution prevention programs, and effective regulations
based on sound science. NCER is committed to providing the best
possible products in areas of scientific research through significant
supportfor long-term research that anticipates future environmental
problems and strives to fulfill significant gaps in knowledge relevant
to protecting the environment. In part, these goals may be accomplished
through this competitive, peer-reviewed extramural program in which
investigator-initiated projects in fundamental research can discover
solutions to environmental problems and EPA can benefit from close
cooperation with the scientific community. Specifically, NCER is
seeking grant applications to conduct exploratory environmental
research based on investigator-initiated proposals in the broad
areas listed below. The examples of possible study areas are provided
as a guide and should not be interpreted to exclude other studies
relevant to the broad topic area.

1A. Environmental Biology.

Examples of studies in this area include investigations to elucidate
and increase our understanding of environmental biological processes
at the molecular, cellular, organism, or population level. The ultimate
application of this knowledge should be to better understand the
impact human activities or environmental pollution may have on these
biological systems.

1B. Environmental Chemistry.

Applications submitted in this area may focus on the reaction of
chemicals in various environmental media (e.g., air, soil, water)
and models predicting the transformation of chemicals in the environment.
In addition, studies developing unique or novel analytical techniques
for monitoring chemicals in the environment would also be of interest.

1C. Physics.

Potential applications in this area may focus on increasing our
knowledge of physical processes in the environment, developing models
describing the physical transport of anthropogenic substances through
the environment, or describing how human activities may impact physical
processes.

1D. Human Health.

Applications submitted in this topic area may focus on determining
the impact exposure to environmental stressors may have on human
health. Specifically, toxicological studies for non-cancer or cancer
health endpoints may be considered.. The results of studies in this
topic should lead to improvements or have applications to environmental
health risk assessments.

1E. Social Science.

Applications submitted in this area may include economic (cost-benefit
analysis), public policy (alternative approaches to regulation),
and sociological (individual and organizational behavior) aspects
of environmental problems. Studies focusing on existing EPA initiatives
such as the Common Sense Initiative, Project XL (Excellence and
Leadership) and Community-based environmental protection are of
particular interest.

1F. Environmental Engineering.

Applications submitted in this area may include control, remediation,
and prevention technology approaches toward solving high priority
environmental problems. Studies focusing on clean products and processes
that may prevent pollution are of particular interest. Similarly,
analytical tools and methods that assist in the identification of
pollution prevention approaches are of interest.

Funding:

Approximately $5 million is expected to be available in FY 1997
for new exploratory research grants. The projected award range is
$75,000 to $125,000/year for up to 3 years.

2. Ecosystem Indicators

The quality of human existence depends on diverse natural resources
and healthy ecosystems. Such resources exist and interact within
spatially and temporally dynamic ecosystems. However, activities
associated with expanding human populations alter these complex
ecosystems and thereby threaten their sustainability and the resources
and values (e.g., food, fiber, medicine, waste processing, wildlife
habitat, fuel, shelter, aesthetic qualities, and recreational opportunities)
that they provide. Monitoring ecosystem status and trends is critical
for detecting alterations that impact the integrity of ecosystems
and their capacity to provide valuable resources into the future.

EPA shares with other Federal agencies the responsibility to
assess, prevent, and reverse adverse impacts of human activities
on ecosystems. Monitoring all components of an ecosystem (soil,
water, air, plants, animals, microorganisms) and their functional
interactions is impractical, but certain measurable environmental
variables, indicators, can be used as surrogates or markers
of the more complete and complex structural and functional attributes
that are the cause and consequence of ecosystem integrity and
sustainability. An ecological indicator is a characteristic that
is related to, or derived from, a measure of a biotic or abiotic
variable that can provide quantitative information on ecological
structure (component networks) and function (interactions). An
indicator should thus contribute to the measurement of ecological
integrity and sustainability.

Previous research efforts have largely concentrated on indicators
within a single resource type (i.e., wetlands, estuaries, rivers,
lakes, streams, or forests), at a single spatial scale and using
a single sampling design. While proposed research on single-system,
single-scale indicators will be considered in response to this
solicitation, research that results in the development or application
of ecological indicators that integrate between or among resource
types, spatial scales, and/or sampling designs will be given highest
priority. A description of a multi-tier framework of sampling
designs for monitoring is provided below.

Monitoring Framework

A monitoring framework to track status and trends in the condition
of the nation's ecological resources was envisioned by both the
National Science and Technology Council's Committee on the Environment
and Natural Resources (CENR) and EPAs Environmental Monitoring
and Assessment Program (EMAP). These programs recognized that an
assessment of ecosystem condition must consider multiple levels
oforganization (organism, population, community, ecosystem), interactions
of resource types (wetlands, estuaries, large rivers, lakes, streams,
forests, etc.), multiple spatial scales (local, watershed, regional,
national, global), and that various monitoring strategies were needed
to answer the diverse questions related to ecosystem condition.
A fundamental premise underlying this framework for environmental
monitoring is that no single sampling design can effectively provide
all of the information needed to evaluate environmental conditions
and guide policy decisions. A tiered structure was developed to
emphasize sampling designs based on three spatial scales:

Ultimately, measurements at all three levels must be performed
in a coordinated fashion, allowing an improved understanding of
ecosystems and an improved ability to manage those systems for
integrity and sustainability.

Objectives

EPA solicits proposals for research that leads to the development
of techniques and indicators that characterize and quantify the
integrity and sustainability of ecosystems at local, regional, national,
and/or global scales. Applications should address the following
prioritized research objectives:

(1) The highest priority objective is to stimulate the development,
evaluation, and integration of indicators, suites of indicators,
indices, and models to improve local, regional, national, and
global monitoring and assessment of ecological integrity and sustainability.
EPA recognizes the need to develop system-level indicators that
cross resource types, span spatial scales, and integrate sampling
designs. Cross-resource indicators may be represented by single
measurements that reflect and/or integrate conditions in more
than one type of ecosystem (e.g., amphibian populations dependent
on both terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems) or different measurements
made jointly on more than one ecosystem, and then linked together
by an algorithm or model (e.g., simultaneously measuring linked
aquatic and terrestrial components of a watershed). Integration
across spatial scales may include indicators that combine patch
size, vegetation structure, and foliar condition into an index
of forest sustainability. Integration among sampling tiers may
include techniques that synthesize existing data from different
tiers or that combine indicators from different sampling designs
to better determine ecosystem condition.

(2) The second priority objective is to develop indicators
of functional processes that contribute to ecological integrity
and sustainability. In particular, research is needed on indicators
that reflect critical functional associations among indicators
from different resource types (e.g., the relationship between
indicators of forest canopy and stream biotic integrity).

(3) The third priority objective is to develop indicators
that identify effects of particular stressors of ecological
integrity and sustainability. Research is requested that examines
the potential of indicators to improve our ability to interpret
changes in ecological integrity as a function of stressor type
and exposure characteristics. Studies are desired that relate
indicators of population or community structure/function to
exposure to either chemical, physical, or biological stressors,
consistent with clearly stated mechanistic cause-effect hypotheses.
Examples include developing indicators of amphibian and reptile
reproduction or estuarine plankton composition that would distinguish
between the effects of pesticide exposure and of UV-B radiation.

Scope of Research

EPA solicits research proposals related to the development or evaluation
of ecological indicators, suites of indicators, indices, and models
that could be used to characterize status or trends in multiple-resource
ecosystems. Each proposal must address the potential for the proposed
techniques to improve our ability to characterize with confidence
ecological integrity and sustainability. Applications should provide
a reasonable scientific conceptual model to account for the functional
relationship between or among indicator(s) and their response to
anthropogenic stressors. This solicitation emphasizes the need for
indicators that cross resources, span spatial scales, and/or integrate
sampling regimes.

Instrument

Applicants may apply for grants on their own behalf or establish
interdisciplinary teams. Proposals involving multiple institutions
are encouraged but are not necessary. Proposals representing research
consortia should clearly identify the lead institution and the basis
for allocating research funds.

Funding:

Approximately $10 million will be available in fiscal year 1997
for funding proposals in the research areas described. It is anticipated
that the annual funding levels (for up to three years) will range
from $100,000 to $300,000 although research involving complex multiple
scale issues may be funded up to $500,000.

3. Issues in Human Health Risk Assessment

Various reports have stated concern that EPA's current approaches
to risk assessment do not adequately account for cumulative risks
arising from complex exposure patterns and human variability due
to genetic and other factors. These documents include the National
Academy of Sciences (NAS) 1993 report titled, "Pesticides
in the Diets of Infants and Children;" the NAS 1994 report
on "Science and Judgment in Risk Assessment;" and
the 1996 draft report by the Presidents Commission on Risk
Assessment & Risk Management titled, "Risk Assessment
and Risk Management in Regulatory Decision-Making."

Several recent pieces of legislation have mandated the consideration
of cumulative risk and variability factors and press for stakeholder
involvement in the risk characterization process. Specifically,
the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 (FQPA) directs
EPA in its assessments of pesticide safety to focus in part on
the cumulative effects of pesticides and other substances that
have a common mechanism of toxicity and the aggregate of dietary
and non-occupational consumer exposure. These reports and laws
point to an emerging body of evidence that suggests person-to-person
differences in metabolism, genetic pre-disposition, physical environment,
and age (infants, children, and elderly) may place certain groups
of individuals at an increased risk from environmental stressors.
This can result in decreased quality of life and increased illness
and mortality.

The traditional standard default approaches used in risk assessment
may underestimate the impact of environmental agents on particular
groups of individuals. These approaches do not adequately account
for complex exposure patterns involving multiple acute exposures
and/or exposures to mixtures of toxic chemicals or for the variability
in human biological responses to toxic chemicals. Expanded investigation
in these areas will benefit risk assessment by providing the tools
to identify and characterize high risk groups and by providing
fundamental data to develop predictive approaches and more reliable
assessment methods.

FQPA also directs the Federal Government to begin providing
consumer right-to-know information related to understanding the
risks and benefits of aggregate and cumulative exposure.

Human health risk assessment research is needed in the three
areas described below.

3A. Human Health Effects of Complex Exposure Patterns

Research is needed on the influence of complex exposures on the
non-cancer human health effects of pesticides and other toxic chemicals
in the environment. Exposure of human beings to toxic chemicals
arises from multiple sources and via multiple pathways. They also
occur in a variety of complex temporal patterns. EPA risk assessments
have usually focused on individual environmental agents, often considering
chronic exposures from individual sources occuring via individual
pathways. EPA would like to shift the emphasis to a more broadly
based approach which incorporates multiple sources and pathways
of exposure and considers complex exposure patterns such as multiple
acute exposures and exposures to mixtures of pesticides and other
toxic chemicals. The evaluation of the effects of these complex
exposure patterns has been collectively termed cumulative risk assessment.

EPA is interested in sponsoring basic research to develop novel
approaches for assessing cumulative human health risk and to develop
methods to account for the multiple elements of environmental
risk that affect human health: (1) who, what, and/or where is/are
being affected? (2) what are the stressors? (3) what are the sources?
(4) what are the pathways and routes of exposure? (5) what are
the relevant timeframes? and (6) what are the assessment endpoints?
Approaches might include measurement-based, multipathway human
exposure assessment, toxicological studies, mechanistic research,
pharmacokinetic and/or dose-response modeling.

Specifically, this research should include:

(1) studies to quantify the cumulative exposures resulting from
these complex multipathway exposure patterns, including studies
utilizing environmental, biological, and/or behavioral data, and
(2)toxicological and other studies that investigate the neurological,
developmental, reproductive, and other non-cancer human health
effects of these exposures, with the aim of developing dose-response
relationships.

The exposure patterns used in these studies should have a demonstrated
relationship to actual or potential human exposures. Also, the studies
should compare acute, episodic, and chronic exposure regimes and/or
compare the effects of chemical mixtures with those of the single
chemicals in the mixtures.

3B. Variability in Human Responses to Environmental Agents

Research is needed to study the impact of genetic polymorphisms
on human susceptibility to the effects of toxic chemicals in the
environment. The intent should be to quantify these variabilities
within the general population. These studies might also extend to
the incorporation of results into dose-response models for use in
risk assessment. Of interest would be molecular,epidemiological,
and other types of research to examine:

(1)The causes and extent of interindividual variability in susceptibility
to neurological, developmental, reproductive, and other non-cancer
health effects resulting from exposure to toxic chemcials in the
environment;
(2)Possible relationships between susceptibility and such covariates
as age, race, ethnicity, and sex; and
(3)Approaches for improving the default assumption that individual
humans on average have the same susceptibility as populations
of humans in epidemiological studies.

3C. Consumer Right-to-Know

The FQPA requires the federal government to provide consumer right-to-know
information in a format understandable to a lay person. Such information
would be distributed to large retail grocers for public display
related to the risks and benefits of pesticide chemical residues
in or on food purchased by consumers with recommendations to consumers
for reducing dietary exposure to pesticide chemical residues in
a manner consistent with maintaining a healthy diet. Therefore,
research is needed on how best to communicate the results of these
more comprehensive assessments.

Risk communication research is needed: (1) to identify optimal
communication strategies and tools with which to disseminate information
and educate consumers, and (2) determine what kinds of information
consumers will find most useful. Research is needed to explore
whether any adjunct or complementary communication strategies
(e.g., public information, health information campaign) would
contribute to assuring that the public receives accurate, pertinent,
and useful information. Factors that could be explored include,
but need not be limited to: (1) strategies for increasing comprehensibility
and retention of information, (2) strategies to motivate behavioral
changes to reduce potential exposures, and (3) identifying factors
key to ensuring understanding and cultural acceptability to minorities
and potentially susceptible subpopulations.

Funding:

About $5 million is expected to be available in fiscal year 1997
for awards in this program area. The projected award range is $50,000
to $300,000/year for up to three years.

4. Endocrine Disruptors

Evidence has been accumulating that humans and domestic and wild
species have suffered adverse health consequences resulting from
exposure to environmental chemicals that interact with the endocrine
system. These pollutants are collectively referred to as "endocrine
disruptors," a term broadly defined as "an exogenous agent
that interferes with the production, release, transport, metabolism,
binding, action, or elimination of natural hormones in the body
responsible for the maintenance of homeostasis and the regulation
of developmental processes."

In response to growing public health concerns related to chemicals
in the environment which have the potential to act as endocrine
disruptors, the Office of Research and Development of the EPA
included Endocrine Disruptors as a high priority research issue
in the ORD Strategic Plan and has developed an Endocrine Disruptors
Research Plan. The plan identifies the need for three broad categories
of research: biological-effects studies, exposure studies, and
studies on the linkage of exposure and effects. Grant applications
are sought in each category. The focus of the research may range
from studies on wildlife populations and laboratory organisms,
to humans, in both laboratory and field settings.

EPA has developed a three-year plan for the solicitation of
research applications from the scientific community. In the forthcoming
first year of the plan, research topics of interest include:

Development and validation of in vivo and in vitro
test methods to screen toxicants, singly or in mixtures, for
endocrine-disrupting activity in vertebrate and invertebrate
species. Methods may employ tissues, cell lines, isolated receptors,
and enzymes in vitro, as well as bioassays and hormone
measurements in vivo.

Development of new measurement and analytical methods, including
the development of field-portable devices for endocrine disruptors
in various media, e.g., air, water, soil.

Studies in animal models on the modes and mechanisms of action
of endocrine disruptors on neuroendocrine, reproductive, immune,
and central nervous systems at the molecular, cellular, or functional
levels resulting from exposure during development, with emphasis
on identification of sensitive subpopulations (age/sex). Studies
may include physiologically-based pharmacokinetic (PB-PK), physiologically-based
toxicokinetic (PB-TK), and biologically-based dose-response
(BBDR) models.

Development of QSAR models of endocrine disruption mechanisms
of action, including receptor binding, enzyme inhibition, etc.,
for vertebrate and invertebrate species.

Studies to define the "baseline" endocrine status
in wildlife populations and their laboratory surrogates.

Studies on the role of hormones in sexual differentiation
and reproductive development of non-mammalian species and the
effects of endocrine disruptors on this process.

Identification and validation of measurement endpoints, in
vivo and in vitro screening methods, and other bioassays
indicative of the effects of endocrine disruptors at the level
of populations and communities.

Studies of sites/systems with problems that are known or strongly
suspected to be related to endocrine disruptors.

We particularly seek studies that examine endocrine disruptor-related
effects in wildlife populations, as well as studies which include
significant attention to issues related to the types, levels, sources,
and fates of endocrine-disrupting chemicals in the environment.
Additional information regarding research needs on endocrine disruptors
may be found in the following references:

Ankley, G.T., et al. (1996), Development of a research
strategy for assessing the ecological risk of endocrine disruptors.
Rev. Toxicol. Series B - Environmental Toxicology,
in press.
Kavlock, R.J., et al. (1996), Research needs for the risk
assessment of health and environmental effects of endocrine disruptors:
a report of the USEPA sponsored workshop, Environmental Health
Perspectives 104 (Supplement 4):715-740.

Funding:

About $3 million is expected to be available in fiscal year 1997
for awards in this program area. The projected award range is $100,000
to $200,000/year for up to 3 years.

5. Ambient Air Quality

Certain widespread air pollutants, such as fine particulate matter,
ozone, and air toxics, continue to pose serious public health risks
for susceptible members of the U.S. population and risks to sensitive
ecosystems. The Clean Air Act (CAA) requires that EPA establish
and periodically review and revise, as appropriate, criteria and
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for pollutants such
as particulate matter and ozone. The Act also requires the preparation
of State Implementation Plans which describe control strategies
that State and local authorities will employ to bring nonattainment
areas into compliance with NAAQS.

In addition, the CAA requires control of toxic air pollutant
emissions from point and area sources. The Act prescribes a phased
approach to regulate both major point sources and area sources
of air toxics. The control program for major sources is a technology-based
control program that mandates the use of Maximum Achievable Control
Technology (MACT) for major sources emitting one or more of 189
listed hazardous air pollutants (HAPs). A strategy for controlling
the 30 most hazardous toxic pollutants in urban areas is also
mandated as is an assessment of residual risks in urban areas,
which remain after control of these 30.

The EPA seeks applications for research aimed at generating
new knowledge in these three major areas: fine particulate matter,
tropospheric ozone, and air toxics.

5A. Tropospheric Ozone and Fine Particulate Matter

Tropospheric ozone research is being coordinated through the North
American Research Strategy for Tropospheric Ozone (NARSTO), a public/private
sector cooperative 10-year research effort to both improve the technical
understanding of the tropospheric ozone issue and support future
evaluations and adjustments to attainment strategies. The EPA/ORD
contribution to the NARSTO program emphasizes the areas of atmospheric
chemistry and modeling, ambient measurement methods, and emissions
research.

A similar cooperative multi-year research effort for fine particulate
matter is also emerging. Much of the needed research for tropospheric
ozone and fine particulate matter overlaps. Exploration of the
most important unknowns in tropospheric ozone chemistry emphasizes
atmospheric oxidation reactions which also play an important role
in aerosol formation. Modeling the transport and fate of both
ozone and particulates relies on similar meteorological processes
and the same computational frameworks. Precursor nitrogen oxide
emissions and ambient nitrate measurements are also important
to both.

Research is needed in the following areas:

Atmospheric Chemistry

Laboratory smog chamber studies of oxidant and aerosol production
from irradiated hydrocarbon (HC)/NOx/SO2/NH3
mixtures, including the production of organic nitrates from
HC/NOx mixtures.

Development and diagnostic evaluation of emissions-based modeling
which focuses on interactions of urban and point source plumes
with the surrounding regional atmosphere in the formation, transport,
and fate of ozone and/or fine particulates, using coding approaches
compatible with EPAs Models-3 framework.

Monitoring and observations-based approaches to investigate
photochemical ozone and fine particulate problems and to develop
and evaluate emissions control strategies,including methods
for analysis and interpretation of data from the PAMS (Photochemical
Assessment Monitoring Station) network.

Development and evaluation of a real-time instrument for determining
the size-dependent chemical composition of atmospheric particulate
matter, including its fine and coarse, biochemical, biogenic,
volatile, insoluble, and aqueous fractions.

Developing new, more sensitive techniques for ambient measurement
on short time scales of chemically-significant, stable and unstable
trace gases and substances participating in the photochemistry
of ozone and/or the formation of fine particulate aerosols.

Funding:

Approximately $5 million is expected to be available in FY 97 for
awards in thisprogram. Proposals in the $100,000 to $200,000/year
range are encouraged. Duration of awards may be up to 3 years.

5B. Special Opportunity in Tropospheric Ozone

Through its NARSTO experience, EPA can see clear advantages of synergy
and economy in using an integrated research approach in dealing
with the two problems of tropospheric ozone and fine particulate
matter in terms of scientific issues in atmospheric chemistry and
modeling, measurement methods, and emissions. Therefore, in addition
to individual-investigator proposals on the separate topics of tropospheric
ozone and fine particulate matter, EPA is also encouraging multiple
investigator proposals for regional approaches to these issues and
will make one or two awards to address them on a regional basis.
Potential applicants are encouraged to submit proposals, preferably
through a coordinating center, which include the equivalent of several
individual applications. In effect, EPA will support one or two
regional consortia at the level of approximately $1 million per
year, not to exceed a three year project period.

Potential applicants for this special opportunityONLY
should submit a pre-proposal following the instructions in section
K of the application instructions. NCER will follow a two step
process for this competition only in which pre-proposals are peer
reviewed and the most meritorious applicants are invited to submit
full proposals for final peer and programmatic review.

5C. Urban Air Toxics

The Clean Air Act (CAA) Amendments of 1990 require EPA to develop
an "Area Source Program" that includes both a national
strategy and a research program. The mandated research program is
intended to provide the scientific basis for development of a comprehensive
national strategy to control emissions of hazardous air pollutants
(HAPs) from area sources. The research program is to include "ambient
monitoring," "analysis to characterize the sources
and the contribution that such sources make to public health risks,"
and "consideration of atmospheric transformation and other
factors which can elevate public health risks." The human health
effects to be considered under the research program include carcinogenicity,
mutagenicity, teratogenicity, neurotoxicity, reproductive dysfunction,
and other acute and chronic effects of urban air pollutants. The
national strategy must "identify not less than 30" HAPs
that "present the greatest threat to public health in the largest
number of urban areas." The strategy is to be fully imple mented
by the year 2000 and must provide guidelines for controlling the
area source emissions of the 30 or more identified HAPs, while simultaneously
ensuring the reduction of at least 75% in the "incidence of
cancer attributable to exposure to hazardous air pollutants."

A discussion of research needs for this area of interest is
included in the EPA report "Urban Area Source Research Program:
A Status Report on Preliminary Research" (EPA 600-R-95/027).
Some of the critical research questions are highlighted below:

What direct observational evidence (i.e., epidemiologic data)
is there to link health effects with ambient levels of exposure
to HAPs? Such research should focus on HAPs for whichlittle
information now exists and should use a multi-disciplinary approach
to address both exposure and the resultant human health effects.
Opportunities to leverage observational data from community-based
studies already in place should be exploited.

What is the impact of mixtures of urban air pollutants on
public health? Urban air pollution is a "soup" of
chemicals; the chemicals come from many sources, are modified
by atmospheric transformation, and may exhibit a variety of
health effects. The risks posed by individual and mixtures of
such toxic pollutants need to be characterized.

Are there subpopulations that may be at increased risk from
HAPs, due to higher exposures, or exposure to complex mixtures
of pollutants? What is the distribution of human exposures to
the various HAPs, both for susceptible subpopulations and the
general public? By what route, and how effectively, do the HAPs
reach humans?

What are the most significant sources of toxic pollutants
of concern in urban areas? How can the most critical sources
be identified and their contribution to exposures and risk be
quantified?

How can monitoring and modeling (including emissions modeling,
dispersion modeling, source apportionment modeling, and human
exposure modeling) best be linked to estimate exposure and risk?
How can the distribution of human exposures best be estimated
for populations living and working near to identified point
sources?

Funding:

About $2 million is expected to be available in FY 97 for awards
in this program. Proposals in the $50,000 to $200,000/year range
are encouraged. Duration of awards may be up to three years.

6. Health Effects and Exposures
to Particulate Matter and Associated Air

Pollutants

Air pollution in the United States is regulated under the authority
of the Clean Air Act to protect public health and welfare. Recently,
EPA's Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee reviewed and reached
consensus that there is increasing scientific confidence, based
on numerous epidemiological studies, that particulate matter (PM)
is associated with increased morbidity and mortality and these effects
occur at exposure levels below the current standards. Significant
uncertainties remain, however, about the biological mechanisms that
could cause increased mortality or morbidity from PM exposures and
about the nature of human exposures. The question of biological
plausibility, i.e., "How could PM be causing these effects?"
has received much less study. Animal toxicology studies have reproduced
at higher concentrations the effects reported in humans: mortality,
asthma-like effects, and increased infection-related morbidity.
While several hypotheses regarding possible mechanisms underlying
recently reported PM effects have been proposed, little research
has been conducted to evaluate these hypotheses and to explore issues
of dose-response and exposure scenarios.

In addition, there are important scientific uncertainties regarding
PM exposures. Uncertainties regarding exposure assessment (e.g.,
particle concentration, size, chemical speciation, spatial and
temporal variability, and copollutants) for important subpopulations
(e.g., children, the elderly, individuals with pre-existing disease)
are critically important since they affect interpretation of the
epidemiological studies on which PM risk estimates are based.
Understanding regional and temporal variability in particle characteristics
(e.g., Western versus Eastern U.S.) and toxicity (e.g., coarse
natural fugitive dust particles versus fine combustion-derived
particles) may also lead to more effective risk management.

Research is needed in the following areas:

Investigation of causal mechanisms of PM toxicity. New clinical,
epidemiological, toxicological, and in vitro research
is needed for pulmonary, cardiovascular, and immunological effects
(or other effects) in normal and sensitive subpopulations to
better understand causal mechanisms by which PM, alone and/or
in combination with other air pollutants, may cause health effects
at levels below the current standard.

Studies using intermediate biological endpoints (i.e., which
might relate to morbidity) hypothesized to be important to a
causal mechanism(s) are needed to simultaneously test mechanism
hypotheses and be indicative of dose-response relationships
for PM toxicity. Research is needed on coarse, fine, and ultrafine
particles.

Research to reduce uncertainties in exposure assessment for
PM and associated copollutants. Research is needed to improve
the characterization of individual and population exposures
to PM (concentration, size, composition, fine mode versus coarse
mode, etc.) and copollutants, including relationships between
personal exposure to ambient PM, indoor PM, and total PM, and
to allow new epidemiological studies to better define relationships
between exposure to PM and other atmospheric constituents and
adverse health effects.

Research is needed on the composition of little understood
components of PM such as organic compounds (non-volatile and
semi-volatile), primary biological materials, and species dissolved
in liquid particles. Characterization of the spatial, temporal,
and indoor/outdoor patterns of species such as NH4NO3
and parameters such as particle number is included. New or improved
instruments or techniques may be required for these studies
also.

Funding:

Approximately $2 million is expected to be available in FY 97 for
awards in this program. Proposals in the $50,000 to $200,000/year
range are encouraged. Duration of awards may be up to three years.

7. Drinking Water

The Safe Drinking Water Act requires that public water supplies
be disinfected and that the EPA set standards and establish processes
for treatment and distribution of disinfected water to ensure that
no significant risks to human health occur. Scientific evidence
suggests that exposure to chemical byproducts formed during the
disinfection process may be associated with adverse health effects.
Reducing the amount of disinfectant or altering the disinfection
process may decrease byproduct formation; however,these practices
may increase the potential for microbial contamination. EPAs
current challenge is to balance the health risks caused by exposure
to microbial pathogens with the health risks caused by exposure
to disinfection byproducts.

This section of the solicitation invites research grant applications
in two areas of special interest to its mission: Microbial Pathogens
in Drinking Water Systems and Drinking Water Disinfection Byproducts
(DBPs).

7A. Microbial Pathogens in Drinking Water Systems

The incidence of waterborne disease in the U.S. is highly uncertain.
While the health effects caused by drinking water pathogens are
generally known, limited information is available on the doses and
conditions that produce effects. Limited information is also available
on alternative disinfection methods for pathogens resistant to the
conventional chlorine-based disinfection methods. Research is needed
in the following areas:

In many cases, the causative agents for waterborne disease
outbreaks have not been identified. Emerging pathogens, such
as Cyclospora and Helicobacter pylori, could play
a role in many of these outbreaks. Efficient methods for measuring
the incidence and viability of pathogens in water are needed
to assist in identifying the causative agents in future outbreaks.
For example, research is needed to develop and field test a
practical method for determining the viability and occurrence
of Cyclospora in drinking water. Research is needed to
determine Helicobacter occurrence patterns in raw water
via the development and field testing of a suitable recovery
and culture assay method. Innovative proposals for methods development
for other emerging pathogens are also encouraged. These methods
should be useful for dose-response and exposure estimates for
risk assessment.

Research is needed to develop an understanding of the risks
associated with exposure to primary waterborne pathogens (e.g.,
Giardia, Cryptosporidium, and enteric viruses) andto
emerging pathogens (e.g., Cyclospora, Mycobacteria, Helicobacter
pylori, microsporidia, caliciviruses, adenovirus 40/41,
and coxsackievirus B) as a function of such susceptibility factors
as age (e.g., children), nutrition, protective immunity, and
behavioral patterns.

The safety of drinking water is compromised by pathogenic
microorganisms resistant to standard disinfection methods. Research
is required on the efficacy of ultraviolet radiation (pulsed
and continuous) as a disinfectant in drinking water from various
groundwater and surface water sources, including those that
may pose limitations. In addition, research is needed on the
optimal ultraviolet light wavelengths for inactivating specific
species. Also needed is a better understanding of why pulsed
UV light has a more destructive impact on cyst viability than
continuous UV light.

7B. Drinking Water Disinfection Byproducts

Public water systems disinfect drinking water with chlorine or alternate
disinfectants. While chlorine reduces microbial risk, the use of
chlorine creates new potential risks from disinfection byproducts
formed during the water treatment process. Research is needed to
improve methods for estimating human exposures (via the oral, inhalation,
and dermal routes) to the byproducts of different disinfection treatments.
For the inhalation and dermal routes, research is especially needed
on haloacetic acids, haloacetonitriles, haloketones, and aldehydes.
Proposals should address research on biochemical markers of human
exposure and/or the development and validation of models of human
exposure to DBPs.

It is recognized that there are many other problems in assuring
a safe drinking water supply to the public which this solicitation
cannot address. EPA anticipates additional solicitations in the
future which will focus on some of these.

Funding:

Approximately $3 million is expected to be available in fiscal year
1997 for awards in this program area. The projected award range
is $75,000 to $200,000/year with a duration of 2 or 3 years.

8. Contaminated Sediments

The EPA National Sediment Quality Survey (EPA 823-D-96-002, July
1996) recently analyzed the existing data on sediment quality to
identify the national extent and severity of sediment contamination.
Based on existing data bases, 75 percent of sediments sampled have
a probability of an adverse human health or aquatic life effect.
The study reported that 26 percent of the 21,000 freshwater and
estuarine sampling stations throughout the United States were characterized
as having sediment chemistry and toxicology with potential aquatic
life or human health effects, while another 49 percent was categorized
with intermediate probability of adverse effects.

The question for researchers is, "What are the extent,
severity, and human health and ecological consequences of contaminated
sediments?" In its study on relative risk, EPA's Science
Advisory Board cited the problem of input of toxics to surface
waters, to which contaminated sediments would contribute, as a
moderate source of risk. EPA's Contaminated Sediment Management
Strategy (EPA 823-R-94-001, August 1994) highlights ecological
impacts and human health concerns expressed through the 1200 fish
consumption advisories that were issued in the last year by various
state agencies, in which potential consumers are warned of unsafe
levels of toxic chemicals in fish and shellfish.

A major issue is the reliability of the risk characterization
of contaminated sediments which supports proposed management action
decisions. If assessment endpoints have not been demonstrated
to reflect ecosystem conditions, expenditures of large amounts
of funds for remedial activities may not be justified. EPA seeks
research applications for conducting field validations of sediment
quality criteria, validations of test methods, and validation
of models for determining and assessing ecological effects of
contaminated sediments.

Field Validation of Sediment Quality Criteria

Sediment quality criteria based on equilibrium partitioning make
specific predictions of concentrations in sediments below which
no effects should be seen and above which effects may be seen. The
two chemical classes for which sediment quality criteria have been
proposed are non-ionic organic chemicals and the cationic metals,
cadmium, copper, nickel, lead, and zinc. A mixture model has been
proposed for PAHs and metals. Studies of criteria levels for chemical
groups need to be conducted to determine the degree of protection
provided. It should be possible to examine field sites and to address
multiple chemicals to determine if methods to predict total toxicity
can be related to aquatic system communities.

Measures of ecological effects which are needed include in
situ sediment toxicity, disruption of benthic communities,
and elevated body burdens in organisms. Chemical measurements
in pore water may be a useful determination. For metals, seasonal
variations may be important since acid volatile sulfide levels
are known to vary seasonally. The concern is that sediments would
exhibit toxicity during the period of low acid volatile sulfides.
Also, flux to overlying water could violate water quality criteria.
The comparison of ecological effects to calculated sediment quality
criteria will require the collection of additional chemical and
flux data to provide interpretive information.

Field Validation of Chronic Toxicity Tests

With most laboratory tests the question of lab-to-field extrapolation
becomes a major issue. Toxicity assessment methods for contaminated
sediments have been proposed by EPA for acute toxicity, and, within
a short time, chronic test methods will be made available. Field
studies should be done to obtain data sets from toxicity tests and
population studies obtained on the same spatial and time scales.
Studies are needed especially to relate chronic toxicity tests for
benthos-associated organisms to populations in the marine and freshwater
environments.

Funding:

Approximately $2 million is expected to be available in FY 97 for
awards in this program. Proposals in the $100,000 to $150,000/year
range are encouraged. Duration of awards may be up to 3 years.

Eligibility

Academic and not-for-profit institutions located in the U.S., and
state or local governments are eligible under all existing authorizations.
Profit-making firms and other federal agencies are not eligible
to receive assistance from EPA under this program.

Federal employees may cooperate or collaborate with eligible
applicants within the limits imposed by applicable legislation
and regulations. However, federal agencies, national laboratories
funded by federal agencies (FFRDCs), and federal employees are
not eligible to receive funding through this program and may not
serve in a principal leadership role on a grant. An exception
may occur when the principal investigator's institution subcontracts
to a federal agency to purchase unique supplies or services unavailable
in the private sector. Examples are purchase of satellite data,
census data tapes, chemical reference standards, unique analyses
not available elsewhere, etc. A written justification for such
federal involvement must be included in the application, along
with an assurance from the federal agency which commits it to
supply the specified service.

Potential applicants who are uncertain of their eligibility
should contact Dr. Robert E. Menzer in NCER, phone (202) 260-5779,
EMail: menzer.robert@epamail.epa.gov

Standard Instructions for Submitting an Application

This section contains a set of special instructions related to how
applicants should apply for an NCER grant under the appropriate
solicitation. Proposed projects must be for research designed to
advance the state of knowledge in the research areas described in
this solicitation.

Sorting Codes

In order to facilitate proper assignment and review of applications,
each applicant is asked to identify the topic area in which their
application is to be considered. It is the responsibility of
the applicant to correctly identify the proper sorting code.
Failure to do so will result in an inappropriate peer review assignment.
At various places within the application, applicants will be asked
to identify this topic area by using the appropriate Sorting Code.
The Sorting Codes correspond to the topic areas within the solicitation.
The Sorting Codes and application deadlines for this solicitation
are shown below:

Topic Area

Sorting Code

Due Date

Exploratory Research

environmental biology

97-NCERQA-1A

January 15, 1997

environmental chemistry

97-NCERQA-1B

January 15, 1997

physics

97-NCERQA-1C

January 15, 1997

human health

97-NCERQA-1D

January 15, 1997

social science

97-NCERQA-1E

January 15, 1997

environmental engineering

97-NCERQA-1F

January 15, 1997

Ecosystem Indicators

97-NCERQA-2

January 22, 1997

Issues in Human Health Risk Assessment

The Human Health Effects of Complex Exposure Patterns

97-NCERQA-3A

February 15, 1997

Variability in Human Responses to Environmental Agents

97-NCERQA-3B

February 15, 1997

Consumer Right-to-Know

97-NCERQA-3C

February 15, 1997

Endocrine Disruptors

97-NCERQA-4

February 15, 1997

Ambient Air Quality

Tropospheric Ozone and Fine Particulates

97-NCERQA-5A

February 15, 1997

Special Opportunity Pre-proposals

97-NCERQA-5B

January 15, 1997

Urban Air Toxics

97-NCERQA-5C

February 15, 1997

Health Effects of Particulate Matter

97-NCERQA-6

February 15, 1997

Drinking Water

Microbial Pathogens

97-NCERQA-7A

February 15, 1997

Disinfection Byproducts

97-NCERQA-7B

February 15, 1997

Contaminated Sediments

97-NCERQA-8

February 15, 1997

The Sorting Code must be placed at the top of the abstract (as
shown in the abstract format), in Box 10 of Standard Form 424
(as described in the section on SF424), and should also be included
in the address on the package that is sent to EPA (see the section
on how to apply).

The Application

The initial application is made through the submission of the materials
described below. It is essential that the application
contain all the information requested and be submitted in the formats
described. If it is not, the application may be rejected on
administrative grounds. If an application is considered for award,
(i.e., after external peer review and internal review) additional
forms and other information will be requested by the Project Officer.
The application should not be bound or stapled in any
way. The Application contains the following:

Standard Form 424: The applicant must complete Standard
Form 424 (see attached form and instructions). This form will
act as a cover sheet for the application and should be its
first page. Instructions for completion of the SF424
are included with the form. The form must contain the original
signature of an authorized representative of the applying institution.
Please note that both the Principal Investigator and an administrative
contactshould be identified in Section 5 of the SF424.

Key Contacts: The applicant must complete the Key Contacts
Form (attached) as the second page of the submitted application.

Abstract:The abstract is a very important document.
Prior to attending the peer review panel meetings, some of the
panelists may read only the abstract. Therefore, it is critical
that the abstract accurately describe the research being proposed
and convey all the essential elements of the research. Also,
in the event of an award, the abstracts will form the basis
for an Annual Report of awards made under this program. The
abstract should include the following information:

Sorting Code: Use the correct code that corresponds
to the appropriate RFA topic. (Be sure to substitute the
appropriate code for the "X" in 97-NCERQA-X).

Title: Use the exact title as it appears in the
rest of the application.

Investigators: List the names and affiliations
of each investigator who will significantly contribute to
the project. Start with the Principal Investigator.

Objectives: List the objectives of the proposed
research and the hypotheses being tested during the project
and briefly state why the intended research is important.
This section can also include any background or introductory
information that would help explain the objectives of the
study (one to two pages recommended).

Approach: Outline the methods, approaches, and
techniques that you intend to employ in meeting the objective
stated above (five to 10 pages recommended).

Expected Results or Benefits: Describe the results
you expect to achieve during the project and the benefits
of success as they relate to the topic under which the proposal
was submitted. This section should also discuss the utility
of the researchproject proposed for addressing the environmental
problems described in the solicitation (one to two pages
recommended).

General Project Information: Discuss other information
relevant to the potential success of the project. This should
include facilities, personnel, project schedules, proposed
management, interactions with other institutions, etc. (one
to two pages recommended).

Important Attachments: Appendices and/or other
information may be included but must remain within the 15-page
limit. References are in addition to the 15 pages.

Resumes: The resumes of all principal investigators
and important co-workers should be presented. Resumes must not
exceed two consecutively numbered (bottom center), 8.5x 11 inch
pages of single-spaced standard 12-point type with 1 inch margins
for each individual.

Current and Pending Support: The applicant must identify
any current and pending financial resources that are intended
to support research related to that included in the proposal
or which would consume the time of principal investigators.
This should be done by completing the appropriate form (see
attachment) for each investigator and other senior personnel
involved in the proposal. Failure to provide this information
may delay consideration of your proposal.

Budget: The applicant must present a detailed, itemized
budget for the entire project. This budget must be in the format
provided (see attachment) and not exceed two consecutively numbered
(bottom center), 8.5x11 inch pages with 1 inch margins. Please
note that institutional cost sharing is not required and, therefore,
does not have to be included in the budget table. If desired,
a brief statement concerning cost sharing can be added to the
budget justification.

Budget Justification: This section should describe
the basis for calculating the personnel, fringe benefits,
travel, equipment, supplies, contractual
support, and other costs identified in the itemized
budget and explain the basis for their calculation (special
attention should be given to explaining the travel, equipment,
and other categories). This should also include an explanation
of how the indirect costs were calculated. This justification
should not exceed two consecutively numbered (bottom center),
8.5x11 inch pages of single-spaced standard 12-point type with
1 inch margins.

Quality Assurance Narrative Statement: For awards that
involve environmentally related measurements or data generation,
a quality system that complies with the requirements of ANSI/ASQC
E4, "Specifications and Guidelines for Quality Systems
for Environmental Data Collection and Environmental Technology
Programs," must be inplace. This statement should not exceed
two consecutively numbered, 8.5x11 inch pages of single-spaced
standard 12-point type with 1 inch margins. This is in addition
to the 15 pages permitted for the Project Description. The Quality
Assurance Narrative Statement should, for each item listed below,
either present the required information or provide a justification
as to why the item does not apply to the proposed research.

The data collection activities to be performed or hypothesis
to be tested (reference may be made to the specific page
and paragraph number in the application where this information
may be found); acceptance criteria for data quality (precision,
accuracy, representativeness, completeness, comparability).

The study design including sample type and location requirements
and any statistical analyses that were used to estimate
the types and numbers of samples required.

The procedures for the handling and custody of samples,
including sample identification, preservation, transportation,
and storage.

The methods that will be used to analyze samples collected,
including a description of the sampling and/or analytical
instruments required.

The procedures that will be used in the calibration and
performance evaluation of the sampling and analytical methods
used during the project.

The procedures for data reduction and reporting, including
description of statistical analyses to be used.

The intended use of the data as they relate to the study
objectives or hypotheses.

The quantitative and or qualitative procedures that will
be used to evaluate the success of the project.

Any plans for peer or other reviews of the study design
or analytical methods prior to data collection.

ANSI/ASQC E4, "Specifications and Guidelines for Quality
Systems for Environmental Data Collection and Environmental
Technology Programs" is available for purchase from the
American Society for Quality Control, phone 1-800-248-1946,
item T55. Only in exceptional circumstances should it be necessary
to consult this document.

Postcard: The Applicant must include with the application
a self-addressed, stamped 3x5 inch post card. This will be used
to acknowledge receipt of the application and to transmit other
important information to the applicant.

Pre-proposal Procedure for the Special Opportunity in
Tropospheric Ozone: In thisone area only EPA is inviting
pre-proposals from potential applicants. These pre-proposals
will be programmatically and peer reviewed, and EPA will invite
applicants to submit a final proposal based on the review results.
Decisions on the final awards will be based on the results of
a subsequent peer and programmatic review of the final proposal
similar to that described for the other components of this program.
To facilitate consideration of final proposals, potential applicants
should submit pre-proposals in the format described below. The
pre-proposal must not exceed eight pages in total and must contain
the following information:

Administrative information, including on the first page:

Sorting code: use 97-NCERQA-6B

Exact title

Investigators: list the names and affiliations of
each investigator who will significantly contribute
to the study. Start with the principal investigator.
Provide the address, telephone number, and EMail address
of the principal investigator and the administrative
contact person.

Project description: this section should not exceed five
pages and should cover in an abbreviated fashion the five
areas described in paragraph D above.

Budget: present on one page a budget which estimates the
cost of the project in the major categories (personnel,
supplies, equipment, contractual support, and indirect costs).

Other information normally requested in a full proposal will be
requested as part of the final proposal after the initial round
of peer review. Full proposals will also be accepted from investigators
who do not submit pre-proposals.

Review and Selection

All grant applications are initially reviewed by EPA to determine
their legal and administrative acceptability. Acceptable applications
are then reviewed by an appropriate technical peer review group.
This review is designed to evaluate each proposal according to its
scientific merit. In general, each review group is composed of non-EPA
scientists, engineers, social scientists, and/or economists who
are experts in their respective disciplines and are proficient in
the technical areas they are reviewing. The reviewers use the following
criteria to help them in their reviews:

The originality and creativity of the proposed research, the
potential contribution the proposed research could make to advance
scientific knowledge in the environmental area, the appropriateness
and adequacy of the research methods proposed, and the appropriateness
and adequacy of the Quality Assurance Narrative Statement

The qualifications of the principal investigator(s) and other
staff, including knowledge of pertinent literature, experience,
and publication records as well as the probability that the
proposed research will be successfully completed

The availability and/or adequacy of the facilities and equipment
proposed for the project

The responsiveness of the proposal to the research needs set
forth in thesolicitation

Although budget information is not used by the reviewers as
the basis for their evaluation of scientific merit, the reviewers
are asked to provide their view on the appropriateness and/or
adequacy of the proposed budget and its implications for the
potential success of the proposed research. Input on requested
equipment is of particular interest.

Applications that receive scores of excellent and very good from
the peer reviewers are subjected to a programmatic review within
EPA, the object being to assure a balanced research portfolio for
the Agency. Scientists from the ORD Laboratories and EPA Program
and Regional Offices review these applications in relation to program
priorities and their complementarity to the ORD intramural program
and recommend selections to NCER.

A summary statement of the scientific review of the panel will
be provided to each applicant. Funding decisions are the sole
responsibility of EPA. Grants are selected on the basis of technical
merit, relevancy to the research priorities outlined, program
balance, and budget.

How to Apply

The original and ten (10) copies of the fully developed application
and five (5) additional copies of the abstract (15 in all), must
be received by NCER no later than 4:00 P.M. EST on the closing
date assigned to the topic area appropriate to the application (see
Sorting Codes section):

The application and abstract must be prepared in accordance
with these instructions. Informal, incomplete, or unsigned proposals
will not be considered. The application should not be bound or
stapled in any way. The original and copies of the application
should be secured with paper or binder clips. Completed applications
should be sent via regular or express mail to:

The sorting code must be identified in the address (as shown
above). Please do not use the code 97-NCERQA-X. Proposals submitted
with this sorting code will be returned to the applicant.

Guidelines, Limitations, and Additional Requirements

Proposals must be submitted to only one topic area, using a single
sorting code. Proposals submitted to more than one RFA topic will
be assigned to the topic designated on the first version received
or to the first sorting code designated on the application. If you
wish to submit more than one application, you must ensure that the
research proposed is significantly different from that in any other
that has been submitted to this solicitation or from any other grant
you are currently receiving from EPA or any other federal government
agency.

Projects which contain subcontracts constituting more than 40%
of the total direct cost of the grant for each year in which the
subcontract is awarded will be subject to special review and may
require additional justification.

Researchers will be expected to budget for and participate in
an annual All-Investigators Meeting with EPA scientists and other
grantees to report on research activities and to discuss issues
of mutual interest.

Proprietary Information

By submitting an application in response to this solicitation, the
applicant grants EPA permission to share the application with technical
reviewers both within and outside of the Agency. Applications containing
proprietary or other types of confidential information will be returned
to the applicant without review.

Funding Mechanism

The funding mechanism for all awards issued under this solicitation
will consist of grants from EPA and depends on the availability
of funds. In accordance with Public Law 95-224, the primary purpose
of a grant is to accomplish a public purpose of support or stimulation
authorized by Federal statute rather than acquisition for the direct
benefit of the Agency. In issuing a grant agreement, EPA anticipates
that there will be no substantial EPA involvement in the design,
implementation, or conduct of the research funded by the grant.
However, EPA will monitor research progress, based in part on annual
reports provided by awardees.

Contacts

Additional general information on the grants program, forms used
for applications, etc., may be obtained by exploring our Web page
at <http://www.epa.gov/ncerqa>. EPA does not
intend to make mass-mailings of this announcement. Information not
available on the Internet may be obtained by contacting:

A contact person has been identified below for each topic within
the RFA. These individuals will usually be the Project Officers
for the grants funded under a particular topic. They will respond
to inquires regarding the solicitation and can respond to any
technical questions related to your application.

Exploratory Research

Clyde Bishop --- 202-260-5727
bishop.clyde@epamail.epa.gov

Ecosystem Indicators

Barbara Levinson --- 202-260-5983
levinson.barbara@epamail.epa.gov

Issues in Human Health Risk Assessment

Chris Saint --- 202-260-1093
saint.chris@epamail.epa.gov

Endocrine Disruptors

David Reese --- 202-260-7342
reese.david@epamail.epa.gov

Ambient Air Quality

Deran Pashayan --- 202-260-2606
pashayan.deran@epamail.epa.gov

Health Effects and Exposures to Particulate Matter and Associated
Air Pollutants